Update owners

[mrbojangles3]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed on https://preview-55--hedgehog-docs.netlify.app

[qmonnet]

Overall looks good to me, in the sense that I'm happy to be codeowner for the repo.

As for the form, see also some comments in #53. Won't this change pull the three of us for each PR?

[qmonnet]

Single team for all changes to the repo, then?

[mrbojangles3]

I am following your lead here as far as I understand it. Is the single team what you had in mind?

[qmonnet]

I am following your lead here as far as I understand it.

🥰

Is the single team what you had in mind?

So your initial version changed to:

* @Frostman @mrbojangles3 @qmonnet
docs @Frostman @sergeymatov @sonoble @thedvorkin @mrbojangles3

(I'm amazed I can pick syntax highlighting for CODEOWNERS files in GitHub comments)

One solution is indeed to use a single team for the single repo. This means that when someone opens a PR, and assuming we set up auto-assignments for reviews, we'll have one person from this team pulled for the review, no matter whether the changes are under docs or only to the build framework.

Something closer to your initial proposal would involve two teams:

* @githedgehog/docs-framework
docs @githedgehog/docs-contents

(Or I think we can even have subteams and something like @githedgehog/docs/framework if we prefer.)

Where @githedgehog/docs-framework would regroup Sergei, you and me, and @githedgehog/docs-contents would gather whoever has an interest in doing doc reviews.

This way, there would be one or two people pulled for each PR, enough to cover both owner teams (but possibly a single person if they happen to belong to the two teams, I'm not sure how GitHub works in details on that side). This would avoid pulling Mike or Steven when we change the CI job, for example.

Side note: One drawback of having a single person from a team pulled for review is that the PR is blocked as long as that person doesn't do the review (or unless the author pings someone else from the team). So this means whoever joins the teams must be ready to do the reviews within a reasonable delay.

Personally, I'd be in favour of having these two teams, but others may disagree. Let's discuss at the call today?

[Frostman]

+1 for @qmonnet proposal on 2 teams

[qmonnet]

We need both teams to have write access to the current repo for the new CODEOWNERS file to be valid. @Frostman can you please help with that?